In article , 
amacmil304@aol.com writes
>On Sat, 9 Feb 2008 10:05:04 +0000, Malcolm
> wrote:
>
>>
>>In article
>>, John
>>M.  writes
>>>On Feb 9, 12:34 am, amacmil...@aol.com wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 8 Feb 2008 09:05:06 -0800 (PST), "John M."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There is a rational argument that shooting is cruel.  Even the BASC's
>>>> own survey and vets' evidence at the Burns Inquiry have confirmed
>>>> this.
>>>
>>>There is a consensus among rational people that kosher and halal
>>>butchery is cruel. There isn't a hope in hell of having it banned
>>>until you convince the religious bigots that carry it out of this. So
>>>it is with shooting. If BASC recognise it is cruel, but wish to
>>>continue to shoot, they should be in the forefront of any chance to
>>>change existing legislation with regard to the practice. Have you
>>>talked to them about it?
>>>
>>Just a thought, John, but as this is Angus making a claim about BASC's
>>survey, the first thing you should ask for is the reference which shows
>>that the survey did indeed confirm that "shooting is cruel".
>
>
>No need.  The survey that was leaked showed that up to 40% of
>gamebirds were injured rather than killed outright by shooters.
>
You claimed that "the BASC's own survey" confirmed that "shooting is 
cruel".

I suggested that you should be asked for the reference.

Typically, you have failed to produce it.

-- 
Malcolm

On Sat, 9 Feb 2008 23:26:13 -0800 (PST), "John M."
 wrote:

>On Feb 10, 1:33 am, amacmil...@aol.com wrote:
>> On Sat, 9 Feb 2008 20:32:15 +0000, Malcolm
>>
>>
>>
>>  wrote:
>>
>> >In article ,
>> >amacmil...@aol.com writes
>> >>On Sat, 9 Feb 2008 17:09:36 +0000, Malcolm
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >>>In article ,
>> >>>amacmil...@aol.com writes
>> >>>>On Sat, 9 Feb 2008 13:50:27 +0000, Malcolm
>> >>>> wrote:
>>
>> >>>>>In article ,
>> >>>>>amacmil...@aol.com writes
>> >>>>>>On Sat, 9 Feb 2008 12:19:28 +0000, Malcolm
>> >>>>>> wrote:
>>
>> >>>>>>>In article ,
>> >>>>>>>amacmil...@aol.com writes
>> >>>>>>>>On Sat, 9 Feb 2008 10:05:04 +0000, Malcolm
>> >>>>>>>> wrote:
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>In article
>> >>>>>>>>>, John
>> >>>>>>>>>M.  writes
>> >>>>>>>>>>On Feb 9, 12:34 am, amacmil...@aol.com wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 8 Feb 2008 09:05:06 -0800 (PST), "John M."
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> There is a rational argument that shooting is cruel.  Even the BASC's
>> >>>>>>>>>>> own survey and vets' evidence at the Burns Inquiry have confirmed
>> >>>>>>>>>>> this.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>There is a consensus among rational people that kosher and halal
>> >>>>>>>>>>butchery is cruel. There isn't a hope in hell of having it banned
>> >>>>>>>>>>until you convince the religious bigots that carry it out of this. So
>> >>>>>>>>>>it is with shooting. If BASC recognise it is cruel, but wish to
>> >>>>>>>>>>continue to shoot, they should be in the forefront of any chance to
>> >>>>>>>>>>change existing legislation with regard to the practice. Have you
>> >>>>>>>>>>talked to them about it?
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>Just a thought, John, but as this is Angus making a claim about BASC's
>> >>>>>>>>>survey, the first thing you should ask for is the reference which shows
>> >>>>>>>>>that the survey did indeed confirm that "shooting is cruel".
>>
>> >>>>>>>>No need.  The survey that was leaked showed that up to 40% of
>> >>>>>>>>gamebirds were injured rather than killed outright by shooters.
>>
>> >>>>>>>You claimed that "the BASC's own survey" confirmed that "shooting is
>> >>>>>>>cruel".
>>
>> >>>>>>They commissioned it.
>>
>> >>>>>Do they use the phrase "shooting is cruel"?
>>
>> >>>>Up to 40% injured is cruel.  Their survey confirms this.
>>
>> >>>I see that, unsurprisingly, you have indulged in your usual habit of
>> >>>failing to answer a straightforward question, so I'll ask it again.
>>
>> >>>Do BASC use the phrase "shooting is cruel", in their report.
>>
>> >>Where did I say they did?   Read what I wrote.
>>
>> >You said that their survey confirmed that "shooting is cruel".
>>
>> Yes. It did.
>>
>>
>>
>> >As soon as I asked whether the survey even mentioned the word "cruel"
>> >you went into typical wriggling mode indicating that, clearly, it did
>> >not.
>>
>> Injuring birds is cruel.
>>
>>
>>
>> >Yet another example of Angus twisting words and meanings :-(
>>
>> Not at all.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >>>>>>>I suggested that you should be asked for the reference.
>>
>> >>>>>>>Typically, you have failed to produce it.
>>
>> >>>>>>It's in the public domain.
>>
>> >>>>>>Look it up yourself.
>>
>> >>>>>So you don't know where it is. Thought not.
>>
>> >>>>Do your own research
>>
>> >>>So you don't know.
>>
>> >>Of course I do and so do you.
>>
>> >Another typical Angus response.
>>
>> Another typical Malcolm response.
>>
>>
>>
>> >He claims there is a report in the public domain, but when asked for the
>> >reference, fails to produce it.
>>
>> Look it up yourself like I did.
>
>I recognise that I am just another silly old git like the two of you,
>but surely you both know that exchanges like this are hardly a
>substitute for reality. Why don't you just attach the reference,
>Angus, and put paid to this nonsense. Even he/she/it of a thousand-and-
>one names fills his/her/its posts with relevant URLs.

Let him look it up.



Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk

All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed;
Second, it is violently opposed; and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident. 
-- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

On Feb 10, 10:38 am, amacmil...@aol.com wrote:
> On Sat, 9 Feb 2008 23:26:13 -0800 (PST), "John M."
>
>
>
>  wrote:
> >On Feb 10, 1:33 am, amacmil...@aol.com wrote:
> >> On Sat, 9 Feb 2008 20:32:15 +0000, Malcolm
>
> >>  wrote:
>
> >> >In article ,
> >> >amacmil...@aol.com writes
> >> >>On Sat, 9 Feb 2008 17:09:36 +0000, Malcolm
> >> >> wrote:
>
> >> >>>In article ,
> >> >>>amacmil...@aol.com writes
> >> >>>>On Sat, 9 Feb 2008 13:50:27 +0000, Malcolm
> >> >>>> wrote:
>
> >> >>>>>In article ,
> >> >>>>>amacmil...@aol.com writes
> >> >>>>>>On Sat, 9 Feb 2008 12:19:28 +0000, Malcolm
> >> >>>>>> wrote:
>
> >> >>>>>>>In article ,
> >> >>>>>>>amacmil...@aol.com writes
> >> >>>>>>>>On Sat, 9 Feb 2008 10:05:04 +0000, Malcolm
> >> >>>>>>>> wrote:
>
> >> >>>>>>>>>In article
> >> >>>>>>>>>, John
> >> >>>>>>>>>M.  writes
> >> >>>>>>>>>>On Feb 9, 12:34 am, amacmil...@aol.com wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 8 Feb 2008 09:05:06 -0800 (PST), "John M."
>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> There is a rational argument that shooting is cruel.  Even the BASC's
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> own survey and vets' evidence at the Burns Inquiry have confirmed
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> this.
>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>There is a consensus among rational people that kosher and halal
> >> >>>>>>>>>>butchery is cruel. There isn't a hope in hell of having it banned
> >> >>>>>>>>>>until you convince the religious bigots that carry it out of this. So
> >> >>>>>>>>>>it is with shooting. If BASC recognise it is cruel, but wish to
> >> >>>>>>>>>>continue to shoot, they should be in the forefront of any chance to
> >> >>>>>>>>>>change existing legislation with regard to the practice. Have you
> >> >>>>>>>>>>talked to them about it?
>
> >> >>>>>>>>>Just a thought, John, but as this is Angus making a claim about BASC's
> >> >>>>>>>>>survey, the first thing you should ask for is the reference which shows
> >> >>>>>>>>>that the survey did indeed confirm that "shooting is cruel".
>
> >> >>>>>>>>No need.  The survey that was leaked showed that up to 40% of
> >> >>>>>>>>gamebirds were injured rather than killed outright by shooters.
>
> >> >>>>>>>You claimed that "the BASC's own survey" confirmed that "shooting is
> >> >>>>>>>cruel".
>
> >> >>>>>>They commissioned it.
>
> >> >>>>>Do they use the phrase "shooting is cruel"?
>
> >> >>>>Up to 40% injured is cruel.  Their survey confirms this.
>
> >> >>>I see that, unsurprisingly, you have indulged in your usual habit of
> >> >>>failing to answer a straightforward question, so I'll ask it again.
>
> >> >>>Do BASC use the phrase "shooting is cruel", in their report.
>
> >> >>Where did I say they did?   Read what I wrote.
>
> >> >You said that their survey confirmed that "shooting is cruel".
>
> >> Yes. It did.
>
> >> >As soon as I asked whether the survey even mentioned the word "cruel"
> >> >you went into typical wriggling mode indicating that, clearly, it did
> >> >not.
>
> >> Injuring birds is cruel.
>
> >> >Yet another example of Angus twisting words and meanings :-(
>
> >> Not at all.
>
> >> >>>>>>>I suggested that you should be asked for the reference.
>
> >> >>>>>>>Typically, you have failed to produce it.
>
> >> >>>>>>It's in the public domain.
>
> >> >>>>>>Look it up yourself.
>
> >> >>>>>So you don't know where it is. Thought not.
>
> >> >>>>Do your own research
>
> >> >>>So you don't know.
>
> >> >>Of course I do and so do you.
>
> >> >Another typical Angus response.
>
> >> Another typical Malcolm response.
>
> >> >He claims there is a report in the public domain, but when asked for the
> >> >reference, fails to produce it.
>
> >> Look it up yourself like I did.
>
> >I recognise that I am just another silly old git like the two of you,
> >but surely you both know that exchanges like this are hardly a
> >substitute for reality. Why don't you just attach the reference,
> >Angus, and put paid to this nonsense. Even he/she/it of a thousand-and-
> >one names fills his/her/its posts with relevant URLs.
>
> Let him look it up.

Of course. So give him the reference and let him look it up.